Case: 14-12428

Date Filed: 06/08/2015

Page: 1 of 8

[DO NOT PUBLISH]

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE ELEVENTH CIRCUIT
________________________
No. 14-12428
Non-Argument Calendar
________________________
D.C. Docket No. 4:13-cr-00013-CDL-MSH-1

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff-Appellee,
versus
TROY DEAN WHITEHURST,
Defendant-Appellant.
________________________
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Middle District of Georgia
________________________
(June 8, 2015)
Before TJOFLAT, MARTIN and ANDERSON, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM:

Case: 14-12428

Date Filed: 06/08/2015

Page: 2 of 8

On a conditional plea of guilty, Troy Dean Whitehurst was adjudicated

guilty of manufacturing marijuana, in violation of 21 U.S.C. 841, and sentenced
to prison for twenty-one months. He appeals, arguing that the District Court erred
in denying his motion to suppress the marijuana plants agents of a Georgia Bureau
of Investigation Drug Task Force found during a search of outbuildings on his
residential property in Clay County, Georgia.1 The agents had conducted the
search pursuant to a search warrant issued by the Clay County Magistrate Court.
In moving to suppress the marijuana, Whitehurst contended that the Magistrate
should not have issued the search warrant because the affidavit of the Drug Task
Forces Supervising Agent, Seth Maxwellwhich provided the foundation for the
warrantcontained information Agent Maxwell knew to be false. Whitehurst
contended, moreover, that the affidavit failed to establish probable cause to believe
that he was using his property to grow marijuana.
The District Court rejected Whitehursts first contention but held that his
second contention presented a close question. The court pretermitted the
probable-cause issue and upheld the search based on the good-faith exception
created in United States v. Leon, 468 U.S. 897, 104 S. Ct. 3405, 82 L. Ed. 2d 677

The agents obtained the following evidence during the search: 90 marijuana plants; five
trash bags full of marijuana; nine Sun System grow lights; six Sun System light bulbs; and four
inverters.
2

Case: 14-12428

Date Filed: 06/08/2015

Page: 3 of 8

(1984). We conclude that the court properly applied the exception and accordingly
affirm. 2
I.
The District Court ruled on Whitehursts motion to suppress following an
evidentiary hearing. In addition to the affidavit and search warrant at issue, the
court heard the testimony of Agent Maxwell and City of Edison 3 police officer
Nartonya Houston. Here is what the District Court found in its order denying
Whitehursts motion.
On September 14, 2012, Officer Houston stopped Whitehurst for speeding in
a school zone. When Officer Houston ran the cars license-plate number, she
learned that the vehicle was registered in Whitehursts wifes name and was
uninsured. As she questioned Whitehurst, she smelled the odor of unburned
marijuana. She also detected the odor of fertilizer and saw some gardening
materials inside the car. When she told Whitehurst that she smelled marijuana, he
said that he had smoked some earlier, admitted that he had marijuana in the car,
and consented to a search of the vehicle. Officer Houston found thirty-seven
grams of freshly cut marijuana in a sock under the passengers seat.

We review de novo the application of the good-faith exception, and the fact findings
underpinning the exception for clear error. United States v. Robinson, 336 F.3d 1293, 1295 (11th
Cir. 2003).
3

The city of Edison is located in Calhoun County, Georgia.

3

Case: 14-12428

Date Filed: 06/08/2015

Page: 4 of 8

Officer Houston seized the marijuana, arrested Whitehurst for driving an

uninsured vehicle, and had the car impounded. An agent of the Drug Task Force
conducted an inventory search, 4 seized the gardening materials, and reported what
he had found, along with the information and evidence Officer Houston had
obtained, to Agent Maxwell.5
Agent Maxwell was familiar with Whitehurst, having encountered him
approximately four years earlier during a different marijuana-manufacturing
investigation. Although Whitehurst was not charged as a result of that
investigation, he was suspected by law enforcement to have been involved in the
illegal growing of marijuana.
The District Court concluded its recitation of the facts as follows:
Based on the freshly cut marijuana and gardening materials found in
[Whitehursts] vehicle and [Agent Maxwells] previous knowledge of
[Whitehurst], [Agent Maxwell] sought and obtained a search warrant
from the local magistrate for a search of [Whitehursts] residence . . .
and any outbuildings . . . on that property. In his affidavit relied on by
the magistrate . . ., the agent stated that the following established that
probable cause existed to believe that marijuana was likely present on
the property to be searched: (1) within the past four years, the agent
was involved in an investigation that revealed that [Whitehurst] was
involved with Johnny Hansel in an indoor and outdoor marijuana
grow operation in Terrell and Randolph Counties[, and d]uring this
4

The District Court held that the inventory search was invalid because it was conducted
to obtain evidence that might support a drug-offense charge against Whitehurst. The invalidity
of the inventory search is not pertinent here.
5

The Chief of the Edison Police Department also informed Agent Maxwell of what
Officer Houston had uncovered after stopping Whitehurst earlier in the day.
4

Case: 14-12428

Date Filed: 06/08/2015

Page: 5 of 8

investigation there [were] approximately 1,200 marijuana plants

recovered from several different locations in Terrell and Randolph
Counties and numerous assets used to help cultivate marijuana; (2)
marijuana was found in a sock in [Whitehursts] vehicle; and (3)
numerous products commonly used to cultivate marijuana were
recovered from [Whitehursts] vehicle, including bloom enhancer,
fertilizer refill pellets, head lamp and mosquito net. Based on these
statements in the agents affidavit, the magistrate found probable
cause to believe that evidence of an indoor and/or outdoor marijuana
grow operation likely existed on the property to be searched, and she
issued a search warrant.
Doc. 33, at 45.
In his opening brief on appeal, Whitehurst argues that Agent Maxwell, in his
affidavit, falsely stated that he, Whitehurst, had a history of growing marijuana
and that Agent Maxwell affirmatively misrepresented both his and Mr.
Whitehursts involvement in a four-year-old investigation of a marijuana grow
operation in Terrell and Randolph Counties. Appellants Br. at 28. Without
Maxwells material misrepresentation about his and Mr. Whitehursts
involvement in the four-year-old investigation, the affidavit . . . failed to establish
probable cause to search Mr. Whitehursts residence. Id.
II.
The Fourth Amendment provides that no Warrants shall issue, but upon
probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation. U.S. Const. amend. IV.
Generally, evidence seized pursuant to a search warrant that is invalid under the
Fourth Amendment must be suppressed. See generally Leon, 468 U.S. at 90609,
5

Case: 14-12428

Date Filed: 06/08/2015

Page: 6 of 8

104 S. Ct. at 341115 (discussing the origin and scope of the exclusionary rule).
The good-faith exception to the exclusionary rule applies when the search warrant
is invalid but was issued by a detached and neutral magistrate, and the officers
executing the warrant reasonably rel[ied] on it. Id. at 913, 104 S. Ct. at 3415.
The exception exists because the marginal or nonexistent benefits produced by
suppressing evidence obtained in objectively reasonable reliance on a subsequently
invalidated search warrant cannot justify the substantial costs of exclusion. Id. at
922, 104 S. Ct. at 3420.
Our court has explained that the good-faith exception applies in all but four
limited sets of circumstances. United States v. Martin, 297 F.3d 1308, 1313 (11th
Cir. 2002). The good-faith exception does not apply when (1) the magistrate or
judge in issuing a warrant was misled by information in an affidavit that the affiant
knew was false or would have known was false except for his reckless disregard of
the truth; (2) the issuing magistrate wholly abandoned his judicial role in the
manner condemned in Lo-Ji Sales, Inc. v. New York, 442 U.S. 319, 99 S. Ct. 2319,
60 L. Ed. 2d 920 (1979); (3) the affidavit supporting the warrant is so lacking in
indicia of probable cause as to render official belief in its existence entirely
unreasonable; and (4) depending on the circumstances of the particular case, a
warrant is so facially deficienti.e., in failing to particularize the place to be

Case: 14-12428

Date Filed: 06/08/2015

Page: 7 of 8

searched or the things to be seizedthat the executing officers cannot reasonably

presume it to be valid. Id. (quotation marks omitted) (citation omitted).
Addressing these four sets of circumstances, the District Court found as
follows. First, Whitehurst failed to establish that [Agent Maxwell] knowingly and
intentionally made a false statement in his affidavit or made a false statement with
reckless disregard for its truth, which false statement was necessary to the finding
of probable cause. Second, the District Court found that there was no evidence
to suggest that the magistrate who issued the warrant . . . ever abandoned her role
as a neutral and detached judicial officer. Third, [t]he affidavit was [not] so
lacking in indicia of probable cause that belief in its existence was entirely
unreasonable. And fourth, the warrant was not so facially deficient that the
officers who executed it could not reasonably rely on it to be valid.
We conclude that these findings are not clearly erroneous; therefore, none of
the circumstances that would render the good-faith exception inapplicable were
present.
The question thus becomes whether the agents reasonably relied on the
search warrant. Leon, 468 U.S. at 913, 104 S. Ct. 3415; Martin, 297 F.3d at 1318.
The District Court answered the question in the affirmative and accordingly upheld
the search on the basis of the good-faith exception. The record supports the
District Courts decision.
7

Case: 14-12428

Date Filed: 06/08/2015

AFFIRMED.

Page: 8 of 8